A very good article appeared yesterday on Bart Dame’s FB page.
It addresses some salient issues on Tulsi Gabbard, in light of the recetn New Yorker article. Also interesting to read are the comments below his article.
Quote:”
Bart Dame
Yesterday at 12:06pm ·
A friend asked me my opinion of the New Yorker article on Tulsi Gabbard. I tried to post this reply, but it was not allowed. Maybe it is too long? So I am posting it here. Maybe it will benefit from more visibility.
BTW, I know this topic can trigger strong emotions. I will delete comments that go too far by my standards. Thanks.
-------------
I thought the New Yorker article was very fair. I think Tulsi may have had the most unconventional upbringing of any member of Congress and I do not think people can understand her without understanding that background.
Frankly, many of her online defenders share that background and find meaning in their lives by subordinating their will to that of Chris Butler.
It is ridiculous when people say her religious views should not be scrutinized. At the same time, there are a lot of people who are bigoted against any religious tradition which is not Christian. So it may be tough to have a fair discussion in public on this. But I think the writer did a good job bringing things out into the open which the cult has tried to keep secret.
My sense is that Tulsi is sort of in a trap and is trying to evolve despite being bound by her ties with the group. Chris {Butler] has been sneaky and dishonest for decades. When Chris started the Independents for Godly Government political party back in the 70s, he forced his followers to lie and say it drew candidates from multiple religious backgrounds rather than admit it was totally controlled by the cult. He actively directed their activities, but they all had to pretend he was too pure to dirty his hands with "politics.”
When he ran Rick Reed and Wayne Nishiki for the US Senate, they tried to hide their connection with Chris and accused those of us who spoke of the relationship of "religious bigotry." When Mike Gabbard first published his flyer for Stop Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii," he had the integrity to describe himself as a "Vedic minister." (I have the flyer, but it is lost in my stack of papers. But that's how I remember the wording.)
As Mike's anti-gay campaign grew, he dropped that description, benefiting from the public perception that someone so hateful MUST be a Christian. (I say that without irony). As time went on, he found it convenient to very publicly reconnect with the religion of his childhood, Catholicism. It helped that the Vicar General of the local church, who had actually worked at the Vatican in the Office for the Propagation of the Faith (AKA, "the Office of the Holy Inquisition") was also virulently anti-gay and willing to overlook how many heretical beliefs it required to practice Bhakti devotion to Chris Butler and Krishna AND be a Catholic.
So Mike took pains to hide his ties with Chris Butler and lied about his religious beliefs. This left him vulnerable to an "expose" and limited how far he could rise before the secret he treated as shameful would be revealed.
Tulsi did not, so far as I know, publicly disclose her religious views once she became a politician. Not until after she won the Democratic primary against Mufi.
It was when she was only facing the eccentric Republican candidate, "Smoking Guy," that she disclosed she is a Hindu. Trapped by Mike's insistence he is a Catholic, she has settled on a misleading talking point in her official biography, that she was born to a Catholic father and a Hindu mother. That is less than candid. As far as I can tell, Mike became a Hare Krishna before Tulsi was born and became one of the top leaders in the cult, famously serving as Chris Butler's butler. (Or executive assistant). And headmaster of a school for the growing number of children cult members were producing.
The matter becomes complicated because the cult has used the term "Hindu" opportunistically. Sometimes they say they are Hindu, when that is of benefit. Sometimes they deny they are "Hindu."
I think Tulsi was smart to stop hiding her religious beliefs. She had started to come out of the "saffron closet." This is the first major article in the US to state clearly her upbringing in this Hare Krishna splinter group run by Chris Butler. Which brings me to two surprises. In discussions with the writer, it appears she tried to deny the centrality of Chris Butler in her spiritual life. I think she stumbled badly on that one. The relationship is so well known in Hawaii that it did not make any sense to deny it. Yet she foolishly does so in the article. I think it is helpful if she stops treating it as if it is a shameful secret.
Second, Chris Butler has been notoriously suspicious of reporters for decades. As far as I know, this writer is the first reporter Chris has agreed to talk with in decades. Not sure why.
I may be too close to the story but I expect a typical reader of the New Yorker article will conclude Chris is a bit "off" and the group may legitimately be called a "cult." I think these questions merit more discussion and investigation.
BTW, I do call them a cult, not based on religious criteria but on the sociological way the group functions. Dragging the cult out of the shadows might very well weaken the paranoia essential to the groupthink and their hostility to the dominant culture, which, over time, may cause the psychology to become more healthy, less "cult-like.”
I think Tulsi herself has been on such a path. I doubt she agrees, for example, with Chris and AC Bhaktivedanta before him, that the moon landing was fake. She has probably broken from ACB's teaching that women have smaller brains and are inherently less intelligent than men. Yet, within that religious tradition, both men are regarded as infallible on questions such as these. They are Lord Krishna's "best friend" and representative to the Universe. If they are infallible, then the moon landing was fake and women are inherently less intelligent than men.
I am confident she was given permission by Butler to change her public position on same sex marriage and reproductive rights in order to win the Democratic congressional primary in 2012. Because of her vulnerability on this issue, the cult, whose members had previously flooded public meetings and the comment sections online with mean spirited anti-gay statements, has gone silent.
And Chris's anti-gay pamphlets have disappeared from the shelves of Down to Earth.
I think Tulsi's upbringing in a secretive, anti-materialist subgroup of people who seek to do what they think is right rather than to become "successful" by more mainstream criteria helps explain her freedom from the pressures most other politicians allow to constrain them. It allows her the courage to speak out when she thinks "the Emperor has no clothes." We benefited from this when she criticized Debbie Wasserman Schultz's corrupt leadership of the DNC. As a current member of the DNC, also trying to speak the truth and reform that body, I respect her truth-telling. Few members in Congress had the courage to endorse Bernie Sanders rather than stick safely within the herd and support Hillary Clinton. And, yes, I think support for Clinton often reflected a timidity rather than merely "political agreement," though a lack of courage is related to the adoption of centrist policies.
And I think Tulsi's upbringing and distrust of the dominant American mindset helped her speak out against the reliance on "regime change" in American foreign policy and appreciate that she joined Bernie's campaign to drive home that point, again and again.
While she has been forced to repudiate her early anti-gay activism, I have not seen her discuss and criticize the way she and her father positioned themselves as two of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's war in Afghanistan and Iraq, contributing to the climate of war fever in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. To me, that was as demagogic and hateful as their anti-gay activism. I am glad she has moved beyond that into a critic of reliance upon mass violence in US foreign policy.
I am still unhappy by her uncritical support for the rightwing Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. He remains a nasty Hindu chauvinist and an impediment to efforts to isolate those terrorists who claim to represent Islam. I do think her ties with the Hindu religious right that supports Modi are not just explained by her "Hinduism," but are part of Chris's drive for legitimacy for his cult in India. In general, the Hare Krishnas are seen in India as eccentric Western wannabes, imitating Hinduism.
Tulsi has developed ties with hardline Zionists, not just AIPAC, but even worse, Sheldon Adelson. She went to Israel and made the obligatory, mindless remarks the trip was designed to produce, expressing sympathy for the Israelis while ignoring the humanity of the Palestinians. Adding a photo of her doing yoga at sunrise added her particular exotic bit to the pro-Zionist narrative. When forced to chose between AIPAC and diplomacy, she was one of the last Democratic members of congress to announce support for the Iran nuclear deal, showing she may be able to overcome her anti-Muslim phobia as well as the influence of AIPAC. Unlike Colleen Hanabusa, Tulsi has not sponsored the bill which threatens imprisonment of people who advocate an economic boycott of Israel.
(Anyone who can overlook Hanabusa's support for this bill is a traitor to the First Amendment. No excuses!)
I spent more time on this than I had intended. I will criticize Tulsi when I think she is wrong and defend her when she is right. I think a discussion of her upbringing within the Chris Butler cult is fully appropriate and does merit concern.
At this time, I am undecided in the Second Congressional race, a position which I know annoys some of my anti-Tulsi friends. Let both candidates make their case as to why they deserve to win. I think we can only benefit from the competition and debate.” End quote.
[www.facebook.com]
It addresses some salient issues on Tulsi Gabbard, in light of the recetn New Yorker article. Also interesting to read are the comments below his article.
Quote:”
Bart Dame
Yesterday at 12:06pm ·
A friend asked me my opinion of the New Yorker article on Tulsi Gabbard. I tried to post this reply, but it was not allowed. Maybe it is too long? So I am posting it here. Maybe it will benefit from more visibility.
BTW, I know this topic can trigger strong emotions. I will delete comments that go too far by my standards. Thanks.
-------------
I thought the New Yorker article was very fair. I think Tulsi may have had the most unconventional upbringing of any member of Congress and I do not think people can understand her without understanding that background.
Frankly, many of her online defenders share that background and find meaning in their lives by subordinating their will to that of Chris Butler.
It is ridiculous when people say her religious views should not be scrutinized. At the same time, there are a lot of people who are bigoted against any religious tradition which is not Christian. So it may be tough to have a fair discussion in public on this. But I think the writer did a good job bringing things out into the open which the cult has tried to keep secret.
My sense is that Tulsi is sort of in a trap and is trying to evolve despite being bound by her ties with the group. Chris {Butler] has been sneaky and dishonest for decades. When Chris started the Independents for Godly Government political party back in the 70s, he forced his followers to lie and say it drew candidates from multiple religious backgrounds rather than admit it was totally controlled by the cult. He actively directed their activities, but they all had to pretend he was too pure to dirty his hands with "politics.”
When he ran Rick Reed and Wayne Nishiki for the US Senate, they tried to hide their connection with Chris and accused those of us who spoke of the relationship of "religious bigotry." When Mike Gabbard first published his flyer for Stop Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii," he had the integrity to describe himself as a "Vedic minister." (I have the flyer, but it is lost in my stack of papers. But that's how I remember the wording.)
As Mike's anti-gay campaign grew, he dropped that description, benefiting from the public perception that someone so hateful MUST be a Christian. (I say that without irony). As time went on, he found it convenient to very publicly reconnect with the religion of his childhood, Catholicism. It helped that the Vicar General of the local church, who had actually worked at the Vatican in the Office for the Propagation of the Faith (AKA, "the Office of the Holy Inquisition") was also virulently anti-gay and willing to overlook how many heretical beliefs it required to practice Bhakti devotion to Chris Butler and Krishna AND be a Catholic.
So Mike took pains to hide his ties with Chris Butler and lied about his religious beliefs. This left him vulnerable to an "expose" and limited how far he could rise before the secret he treated as shameful would be revealed.
Tulsi did not, so far as I know, publicly disclose her religious views once she became a politician. Not until after she won the Democratic primary against Mufi.
It was when she was only facing the eccentric Republican candidate, "Smoking Guy," that she disclosed she is a Hindu. Trapped by Mike's insistence he is a Catholic, she has settled on a misleading talking point in her official biography, that she was born to a Catholic father and a Hindu mother. That is less than candid. As far as I can tell, Mike became a Hare Krishna before Tulsi was born and became one of the top leaders in the cult, famously serving as Chris Butler's butler. (Or executive assistant). And headmaster of a school for the growing number of children cult members were producing.
The matter becomes complicated because the cult has used the term "Hindu" opportunistically. Sometimes they say they are Hindu, when that is of benefit. Sometimes they deny they are "Hindu."
I think Tulsi was smart to stop hiding her religious beliefs. She had started to come out of the "saffron closet." This is the first major article in the US to state clearly her upbringing in this Hare Krishna splinter group run by Chris Butler. Which brings me to two surprises. In discussions with the writer, it appears she tried to deny the centrality of Chris Butler in her spiritual life. I think she stumbled badly on that one. The relationship is so well known in Hawaii that it did not make any sense to deny it. Yet she foolishly does so in the article. I think it is helpful if she stops treating it as if it is a shameful secret.
Second, Chris Butler has been notoriously suspicious of reporters for decades. As far as I know, this writer is the first reporter Chris has agreed to talk with in decades. Not sure why.
I may be too close to the story but I expect a typical reader of the New Yorker article will conclude Chris is a bit "off" and the group may legitimately be called a "cult." I think these questions merit more discussion and investigation.
BTW, I do call them a cult, not based on religious criteria but on the sociological way the group functions. Dragging the cult out of the shadows might very well weaken the paranoia essential to the groupthink and their hostility to the dominant culture, which, over time, may cause the psychology to become more healthy, less "cult-like.”
I think Tulsi herself has been on such a path. I doubt she agrees, for example, with Chris and AC Bhaktivedanta before him, that the moon landing was fake. She has probably broken from ACB's teaching that women have smaller brains and are inherently less intelligent than men. Yet, within that religious tradition, both men are regarded as infallible on questions such as these. They are Lord Krishna's "best friend" and representative to the Universe. If they are infallible, then the moon landing was fake and women are inherently less intelligent than men.
I am confident she was given permission by Butler to change her public position on same sex marriage and reproductive rights in order to win the Democratic congressional primary in 2012. Because of her vulnerability on this issue, the cult, whose members had previously flooded public meetings and the comment sections online with mean spirited anti-gay statements, has gone silent.
I think Tulsi's upbringing in a secretive, anti-materialist subgroup of people who seek to do what they think is right rather than to become "successful" by more mainstream criteria helps explain her freedom from the pressures most other politicians allow to constrain them. It allows her the courage to speak out when she thinks "the Emperor has no clothes." We benefited from this when she criticized Debbie Wasserman Schultz's corrupt leadership of the DNC. As a current member of the DNC, also trying to speak the truth and reform that body, I respect her truth-telling. Few members in Congress had the courage to endorse Bernie Sanders rather than stick safely within the herd and support Hillary Clinton. And, yes, I think support for Clinton often reflected a timidity rather than merely "political agreement," though a lack of courage is related to the adoption of centrist policies.
And I think Tulsi's upbringing and distrust of the dominant American mindset helped her speak out against the reliance on "regime change" in American foreign policy and appreciate that she joined Bernie's campaign to drive home that point, again and again.
While she has been forced to repudiate her early anti-gay activism, I have not seen her discuss and criticize the way she and her father positioned themselves as two of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's war in Afghanistan and Iraq, contributing to the climate of war fever in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. To me, that was as demagogic and hateful as their anti-gay activism. I am glad she has moved beyond that into a critic of reliance upon mass violence in US foreign policy.
I am still unhappy by her uncritical support for the rightwing Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. He remains a nasty Hindu chauvinist and an impediment to efforts to isolate those terrorists who claim to represent Islam. I do think her ties with the Hindu religious right that supports Modi are not just explained by her "Hinduism," but are part of Chris's drive for legitimacy for his cult in India. In general, the Hare Krishnas are seen in India as eccentric Western wannabes, imitating Hinduism.
Tulsi has developed ties with hardline Zionists, not just AIPAC, but even worse, Sheldon Adelson. She went to Israel and made the obligatory, mindless remarks the trip was designed to produce, expressing sympathy for the Israelis while ignoring the humanity of the Palestinians. Adding a photo of her doing yoga at sunrise added her particular exotic bit to the pro-Zionist narrative. When forced to chose between AIPAC and diplomacy, she was one of the last Democratic members of congress to announce support for the Iran nuclear deal, showing she may be able to overcome her anti-Muslim phobia as well as the influence of AIPAC. Unlike Colleen Hanabusa, Tulsi has not sponsored the bill which threatens imprisonment of people who advocate an economic boycott of Israel.
(Anyone who can overlook Hanabusa's support for this bill is a traitor to the First Amendment. No excuses!)
I spent more time on this than I had intended. I will criticize Tulsi when I think she is wrong and defend her when she is right. I think a discussion of her upbringing within the Chris Butler cult is fully appropriate and does merit concern.
At this time, I am undecided in the Second Congressional race, a position which I know annoys some of my anti-Tulsi friends. Let both candidates make their case as to why they deserve to win. I think we can only benefit from the competition and debate.” End quote.
[www.facebook.com]